The defendant wholesalers imported sewing machines from Germany which they sold using documents which referred to the machines as using the Singer system. The word Singer was a trade mark of the plaintiffs. The retailers were told that the machines were not made by the plaintiffs.
Held: ‘No man is permitted to use any mark, sign or symbol, device or other name whereby, without making a direct false representation himself to a purchaser who purchases from him, he enables such a purchaser to tell a lie or to make a false representation to somebody else who is the ultimate customer.’
James LJ: ‘I have often endeavoured to express what I am going to express now (and probably I have said it in the same words, because it is very difficult to find other words in which to express it); that is, that no man is entitled to represent his goods as being the goods of another man; and no man is permitted to use any mark, sign or symbol, device or other means, whereby, without making a direct false representation himself to a purchaser who purchases from him, he enables such a person to tell a lie or to make a false representation to somebody else who is the ultimate customer.’
Cotton LJ: ‘But it was urged … that it might be used as an instrument of deception by the purchasers from the defendant when they were selling again. In my opinion, if a man does that, the natural consequence of which (although it does not deceive the person with whom he deals, and is therefore no misrepresentation to him) is to enable that other person to deceive and pass off his goods as somebody else’s, for that he is answerable. But this is confined to those things which in their necessary or natural uses accompany the things sold. For instance, the corks of champagne bottles marked ‘Moet and Chandon’ must be in the bottles sold and must accompany the bottles. They must necessarily accompany the thing to the retail buyer, and so must labels to be put on the bottles. The very reason for their existence is that they must be put on the bottles and if they are deceptive and fraudulent, then the person who prepares them is answerable for it. Such things must not be used if their natural and legitimate consequence is, not to deceive the person to whom they are sold, but to enable the seller to pass off the goods as being the goods of other persons.’
James LJ, Cotton LJ
(1880) 18 ChD 395
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Marks and Spencer Plc, Ladbrokes Plc, J Sainsbury Plc, Virgin Enterprises Ltd, British Telecommunications Plc, Telecom Securior Cellular Radio Ltd v One In A Million and Others PatC 28-Nov-1997
The registration of internet domain names which would infringe trade marks and potentially facilitate passing off can be protected summarily by quia timet injunction. The defendants were dealers in domain names and the use of a trade mark in the . .
Cited – British Telecommunications Plc; Virgin Enterprises Ltd; J Sainsbury Plc; Marks and Spencer Plc and Ladbroke Group Plc v One In a Million Ltd and others CA 23-Jul-1998
Registration of a distinctive Internet domain name using registered trade marks and company names could be an infringement of a registered Trade Mark, and also passing off. It was proper to grant quia timet injunctions where necessary to stop . .
Appeal from – Singer Manufacturing Co v Loog HL 1882
The plaintiffs manufactured sewing machines, and had trade marked their name. The defendant imported machines which they sold as using the Singer system. The retailers they sold to were not led to think that the machines had been manufactured by the . .
Cited – John Walker and Sons Ltd v Henry Ost and Co Ltd ChD 1970
The plaintiff whisky distiller claimed in passing-off against the defendant who supplied bottles and labels to a distiller in Ecuador.
Held: An injunction was granted. Having cited from Singer v Loog, the court added: ‘I would be slow to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 September 2021; Ref: scu.239031